By Staff writer
British brothers Nick and Christian Candy say they hope to reveal details in early March
British property developer brothers Nick and Christian Candy are reported to be interested in partnering on a three million square feet development in Dubai.
According to a report in the UK's Daily Telegraph newspaper, the pair have plans to be involved in the project, which would be approximately three times the size of the London Shard.
"We hope to be able to make an announcement about the Dubai development before the Mipim property conference takes place in Cannes in early March," Nick Candy told the Telegraph.
Candy & Candy has plans to expand cities across the world with partners and hoteliers from Mumbai to Melbourne to replicate the style at the One Hyde Park residential and retail development.
The luxury London project One Hyde Park, which is backed by the Prime Minister of Qatar’s company Waterknights, set a new record for property pricings when it launched in 2011.
“The Candy & Candy brand has long been associated with the world’s most luxurious real estate and after 15 years in design we are now ready to take the brand global and deliver the Candy & Candy standard of luxury living in other major cities around the world,” said Nick Candy, chief executive of Candy & Candy.
“We will work with carefully selected partners on specific projects from multiple unit developments to resorts and residences, which will deliver on our core values of the best location, quality and design, and most importantly that allow us to ensure product quality and the highest operating standards,” Candy added.
Hmmmm. I wonder how the chronic whiners on this forum are going to react. Will they stand on the sidelines this time because a British company is involved? Surely they must be itching to say something negative. After all, this must be a testimony to Dubai's significance as a world class property market since the "Candy & Candy brand has long been associated with the world's most luxurious real estate". Let's see what kind of bitter comments the moaners will spew.
WHJ, shall I take you on a little journey through time and check with you who announced their participation in the Dubai property circus in 2007 and 08 and then ended up bailing. Names like Donald Trump spring to mind and MGM. Maybe AB could start acting like a business newspaper and investigate and report proper stories rather than "revealing" pointless richlists and publishing corporate statements. AB, here is a story, you can get your top team to investigate, what is happening with Palm Jebel Ali and why is a government owned developer not honouring their agreements?
Try this one, WHJ.
Firstly, a testimonial that the "Candy & Candy brand has long been associated with the world's most luxurious real estate" from one of the Candy brothers isn't exactly impartial and therefore largely worthless as just marketing drivel. I appreciate most people who live in this region seem incapable of understanding that sometimes companies say things to make them look good, so I can understand how this might have confused you.
Secondly...if you actually look closer at what Candy and Candy are proposing, you'll see that they're talking about LICENSING their brand for third-party projects. In other words, a developer pays C&C for their name and then does all the work, C&C make the money, the developer takes the risk. So they're basically just selling their name to whoever's foolish enough to pay over the odds for it. Which is why they're talking about Dubai....I refer you again to the first point I made!
Doug. So you're saying a British company is only saying things "just to look good". My goodness! How terribly unpatriotic of you, old chap. Seriously though, you can't really blame us for believing a statement coming from a company such as Candy & Candy, but thank you for alerting us to how misleading and deceptive your companies are. Doesn't really put you and yours in a very good light, does it?
And you complain about our companies!
@WHJ - there's a world of difference between a company saying it's the best in the world (which is perfectly fine as a marketing tactic), and a company promising to build something, taking everyone's money and then not building it.
But yes, you're right. It turns out that companies around the world are after a quick buck. It also turns out that there's nothing wrong with criticising companies, even when they're from your country of origin or residence. Frankly I'm hard pushed to trust anyone who works in real estate, regardless of where they're from. It also turns out then that I'm not a Dubai-basher, I'm just quite cynical of businesses in general. I'm interested to know though how you think that because a British company is rubbish, that therefore means any UAE company is fine and above criticism?
Doug. Well I'm glad you think there's nothing wrong with "criticizing companies from your own country of origin". Until now, a lot of the commentators on this forum from your part of the world have on numerous occasions made comparisons that insinuated European firms were infallible and beyond reproach. Although I don't really understand why you think Candy & Candy is a "rubbish" company, I don't believe I've raised the notion implied by your question.
Maybe a Candy & Candy venture could be sweet. Time will tell as with any bling and buy announcements that we are used to.
But the vitriol of WHJ just remains bitter.
and what is your country of origin WHJ or are you With Holding Judgement?
No, silly me, that would never happen!
One thing this does imply is that the incidence of luxury development opportunities in London, is teetering on the brink of burnout.
Thus they have switched a degree of focus toward Dubai.
However please note:
The Candy brothers, together with CPC, Christian Candyâ€™s company and Project Grande, which I believe is a joint venture created by CPC to build One Hyde Park in conjunction withQatarâ€™s former prime minister Sheikh Hamad bin Jassim bin Jabr al-Thani, are being sued by a member of a group of previous leaseholders, Geoffrey Logue, apparently for breach of confidence, abuse of process and unlawful interference.
The build up to this action is a long and tawdry tale, upon which it is difficult to create any kind of positive spin. However, a fascinating read in the most respected British broadsheets' mid-January editions, for all that.